Tuesday, December 16

An open letter to Russell Brand.

Dear Russell,

Hi. I'm Jo. You may remember me. You may even have filmed me. On Friday, you staged a publicity stunt at an RBS office, inconveniencing a hundred or so people. I was the lanky slouched guy with a lot less hair than you but (I flatter myself) a slightly better beard who complained to you that you, a multimillionaire, had caused my lunch to get cold. You started going on at me about public money and bankers' bonuses, but look, Russell, anyone who knows me will tell you that my food is important to me, and I hadn't had breakfast that morning, and I'd been standing in the freezing cold for half an hour on your whim. What mattered to me at the time wasn't bonuses; it was my lunch, so I said so.

Which is a great shame, because I'd usually be well up for a proper barney with you, and the points you made do actually deserve answers. Although not — and I really can't emphasise this enough, Russell — not as much as I deserve lunch.

Before I go any further, I should stress that I don't speak for RBS. I'm not even an RBS employee, though I do currently work for them. What follows is not any sort of official statement from RBS, or even from the wider banking industry. It is merely the voice of a man whose lunch on Friday was unfairly delayed and too damn cold.

So, firstly, for the people who weren't there, let's describe the kerfuffle. I didn't see your arrival; I just got back from buying my lunch to discover the building's doors were locked, a film crew were racing around outside trying to find a good angle to point their camera through the windows, and you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russell bleeding Brand. From what I can gather, you'd gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. Which left us — the people who were supposed to be in the building, who had work to do — standing around in the cold.

My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that's on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you're challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don't have an appointment.

Of course, Russell, I have no idea whether you could get an appointment. Maybe RBS top brass would rather not talk to you. That's their call — and, you know, some of your behaviour might make them a tad wary. Reputations are very important in banking, and, reputation-wise, hanging out with a guy who was once fired for broadcasting hardcore pornography while off his head on crack is not ideal. But surely a man who can get invited onto Question Time to discuss the issues of the day with our Lords & Masters is establishment enough to talk to a mere banker. And it would be great if you could. Have you tried, Russell? Maybe you could do an interview with one of them. An expert could answer your questions and rebut your points, and you could rebut right back at them. I might even watch that. (By the way, Russell, if you do, and it makes money, I would like a cut for the idea, please. And I'm sure it would. Most things you do make money.)

But instead of doing something potentially educational, Russell, you staged a completely futile publicity stunt. You turned up and weren't allowed in. Big wow. You know what would have happened if a rabid capitalist had just turned up unannounced? They wouldn't have been allowed in either. You know what I have in my pocket? A security pass. Unauthorised people aren't allowed in. Obviously. That's not a global conspiracy, Russell; it's basic security. Breweries have security too, and that's not because they're conspiring to steal beer from the poor. And security really matters: banks are simply crawling with highly sensitive information. Letting you in because you're a celebrity and You Demand Answers could in fact see the bank hauled in front of the FCA. That would be a scandal. Turning you away is not. I'm sorry, Russell, but it's just not.

Your response to my complaint that a multimillionaire was causing my lunch to get cold was... well, frankly, it was to completely miss the point, choosing to talk about your millions instead of addressing the real issue, namely my fucking lunch. But that's a forgivable mistake. We all have our priorities, Russell, and I can understand why a man as obsessed with money as I am with food would assume that's what every conversation is about. Anyway, you said that all your money has been made privately, not through taxation. Now, that, Russell, is actually a fair point. Well done.

Although I can't help but notice that you have no qualms about appearing on the BBC in return for money raised through one of the most regressive taxes in the country, a tax which leads to crippling fines and even jail time for thousands of poor people and zero rich people. But never mind. I appreciate that it's difficult for a celeb to avoid the BBC, even if they're already a multimillionaire and can totally afford to turn the work down. Ah, the sacrifices we make to our principles for filthy lucre, eh, Russell? The condoms and hairspray won't buy themselves. Or, in my case, the pasta.

And, of course, you've been in a few Hollywood films now, haven't you, Russell? I take it you've heard of Hollywood Accounting? Of course you have, Russell; you produced Arthur. So you are well aware that Hollywood studios routinely cook their books to make sure their films never go into taxable profit — for instance, Return Of The Jedi has never, on paper, made a profit. Return Of The fucking Jedi, Russell. As an actor, and even more so as the producer of a (officially) loss-making film, you've taken part in that, you've benefitted from it. (While we're on the subject, I hear great things about Hollywood's catering. I hope you enjoyed it. Expensive, delicious, and served (at least when I dream about it) nice and hot.)

But still, you're broadly right. Leaving aside the money you make from one of the most regressive of the UK's taxes, and the tax exemptions your company uses to encourage rich City investors to give you more money, and the huge fees you've accepted from one of the planet's most notorious and successful tax avoidance schemes, you, Russell, have come by your riches without any effect on taxpayers. Whereas RBS got bailed out. Fair point.

Here's the thing about the bailout of RBS, Russell: it's temporary. The plan was never to bail out a bank so that it could then go bust anyway. That would be too asinine even for Gordon Brown. The idea was to buy the bank with public money, wait until it became profitable again, then resell it, as Alastair Darling clearly explained at the time. And that is still the plan, and it does appear to be on course. Not only that, but it looks as if the government will eventually sell RBS for more than they bought it for. In other words, the taxpayer will make a profit on this deal.

Of all the profligate pissing away of public money that goes on in this country, the only instance where the public are actually going to get their money back seems an odd target for your ire. What other government spending can you say that about, Russell? What other schemes do they sink taxpayers' money into and get it all back, with interest? And how many people have you met who have actually been right in the middle of working to make a profit for the taxpayer when you've interrupted them to cause their lunch to get cold?

As for bonuses, well, I'll be honest: I get an annual bonus. I'm not allowed to tell you exactly how much it is, but I will say it's four or five orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that make the headlines. It's very nice — helps pay off a bit of credit card debt (remember debt, Russell?) — but, to put it in terms you can understand, I'd need to work for several tens of thousands of years before my bonuses added up to close to what you're worth.

But here's the key thing you need to know about bonuses, Russell: they come with conditions attached. My salary is mine to do with as I will (I like to spend a chunk of it on good hot food). My bonus my employer can take back off me under certain conditions. Again, I do not speak for RBS, so cannot say anything about the recent FX trading scandal or PPI or any of that shit. But, in general terms, bonuses have conditions attached, such as "And we'll claw back every penny if we discover you were breaking the rules." And yes, it does happen. The only bonuses that make the news are the ones that get paid. But, every year, bonuses either don't get paid or are even taken back off staff for various reasons, including misconduct. I'd've thought, Russell, that anyone who wanted bankers to be accountable would approve of the scheme.

And now, if I may, a word about your manner.

Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I've always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that's an illusion.

Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That's pretty fucking aggressive, Russell. I'm sure you're aware of the effect. Putting one's face that close to someone else's and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness... back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.) I'm sure that, like turning up with a megaphone instead of an appointment, such an aggressive invasion of personal space makes for great footage: you keep talking to someone in that chatty reasonable affable tone of yours, and they react with anger. Makes them look unreasonable. Makes it look like they're the aggressive ones. Makes it look like people get flustered in the face of your incisive argument. When in fact they're just getting flustered in the face of your face.

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you're keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too.

One last thing, Russell. Who did you inconvenience on Friday? Let's say that you're right, and that the likes of Fred Goodwin need to pay. OK, so how much trouble do you think Fred faced last Friday as a result of your antics? Do you think any of his food got cold, Russell? Even just his tea? I somehow doubt it. How about some of the millionaire traders you despise so much (some of whom are nearly as rich as you, Russell)? Well, no, because you got the wrong fucking building. (Might want to have a word with your researchers about that.) Which brings us back to where we came in: a bunch of admittedly fairly well paid but still quite ordinary working people, admin staff mostly, having their lives inconvenienced and, in at least one case, their lunches quite disastrously cooled, in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your fucking chest-hair, you'd be ashamed.

It was paella, by the way. From Fernando's in Devonshire Row. I highly recommend them: their food is frankly just fantastic.

469 comments:

Such a coherent post. Quiet frankly Russell Brand has become a parody of himself, jumping on any bandwagon that will get him air time. The fact he preaches to the system rather than trying to get elected says it all really, as was demonstrated on Question Time.

As someone who thoroughly despised Brand years before it became fashionable it is heartening to read pieces like this.

He sells the 'geezer-clown' act well and unfortunately prevents many people from realising that he is, as you discovered, a bully. He's also a pernicious anti-intellectual who celebrates his ignorance and encourages others to do the same.

One thing I thought I should add is that Brand, as a Youtube partner, has to continually pull these kinds of stunts. It is the main thing that will continue to pull in the hits and enable him to also continue receiving thousands every month from youtube:

A good read, despite your vulgarity. Think that stoops to his level somewhat.

A few issues that I'd like a reply from and I ask genuinely lacking understanding and appreciate your deeper knowledge.

You say that public money will be reimbursed and probably with interest. That's great, and often missed by many. But is it not a fact that the bail-out still brought the country to its knees, even if it was in the short-term? And, therefore, could it be argued that some people may never recover from the financial strife that they suffered due to the bail-out. Those who were made redundant and may not find a job again? Even worse, those whose lives and families were maybe torn apart? Even if the public funding is restored, it's pretty difficult for those people to recover, isn't it? Couldn't the process of helping the banks be focused elsewhere rather than the vulnerable low-incomed workers, etc? Sincerely confused, and would like clarity.

Secondly, I can't stand Brand and his persona. It's a shame that people use him as their insight into politics because he gives unsubstantiated insights into issues and causes unneeded hysteria. But isn't your post solely focused on his personality? Even though his actions are wrong, he goes to the wrong building and focuses on the wrong people, is he wrong for being concerned that there are some super-wealthy UK citizens (and others) who take huge chunks out of the economy and do everything they can to avoid tax payments and contribute? He obviously oped into a room of admin staff and the like, and misinterprets his subjects, but there are quite a few people in the city who need to be accounted for, right? Those greedy ones? Just a yes or no would suffice here.

Russell Brand is a prime example of being "an arsehole with or without the drugs" (and if he's reading this he'll understand this N.A. or Rehab.Therapy descriptive phrase perfectly). He gives recovery a bad name.

"From what I can gather, you'd gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. "

Your impeccable evidence for this claim is a link to the Daily Mail, who say the film crew entered the lobby. So, you make a series of claims, offer a tabloid rag with a history of dishonesty as evidence, and it flatly contradicts you.

"Witnesses told MailOnline how the comedian entered the building's lobby with a television crew"

If I were you I would be embarresed for what you have written, your open letter is ignorant and selfish not to mention completely blind of the things that are going on around you,you silly silly man with godamn lunch

"Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That's pretty fucking aggressive,"

That's a pack of lies too. Watch the clip, there's no aggression at all, first Brand is smiling and posting for selfies, then the ugly slaphead asks a question and Brand replies perfectly reasonably. You've built up an innocuous encounter and a calm, reasonable conversation into an "aggressive" confrontation that reminded you of being bullied at school! You're a liar. You've absurdly exaggerated what happened to make yourself out to be some kind of victim, it's laughable, did you seriously think nobody would post the clip?

I can't stand Brand. I also hate liars and misogynists like this chap. Watch the clip, decide for yourself whether this man's claims are true. At first I thought it must be a different encounter but that's it. It's all on film.

So, this blogger is a liar, he's inflated a mild and perfectly harmless conversation into an aggressive, scary episode that brought on bullying flashbacks. Pathetic.

This blogger also has some unsavoury attitudes toward women, look at the references to condoms and "bikes" in this piece. If someone is having sex it doesn't bother me, it bothers this blogger off so much he attacks the women for being sexually active. Women he's never met and never will meet. The bloke's a lying creep.

Spindrift go off and try to acquire a sense of humour - e-bay, Amazon wherever - just get one. The blogger has a great writing style, a great sense of humour and beautifully bursts Brand's bubble of pomposity and faux 'people's champion' persona. Brand is beyond wazzockry and only the truly deluded and immature rally to his 'revolution'. The shame is that millions have died to allow Brand and his ilk the free speech that enables him to spout his puerile gibberish.

Seconded and thirded. Are you really trying to tell me that one slightly off piste gag in an otherwise unbelievably right on article changes anything? What about russells consistent use of "love" and "babe" to serving female mps, and his history with hardcore pornography and on air bullying? This article is just brilliant, and my mother agrees

You misunderstand, my main objection isn't this bloke slagging off women, it's that the blog is a pack of lies from start to finish. There are plenty of ways of attacking Brand, making up silly fibs isn't the best way of doing it. This person has ridiculously inflated the incident IN ORDER TO BIG HIMSELF UP. He's telling lies to inflate his own self-importance. He's a liar. Watch the clip.

I appreciate good writing but when the author implies honesty and truthfulness to get his point across and then is shown to be a complete liar, then I have to say he is the shister and not the subject of his piece. And yet you seem to be happy to support a pack of lies because you like his writing style; shallow in the extreme.

Essentially, if an employee is posting on the internet or social media under the company name, or referencing the brand or company name in a post, then they are representing the brand and therefore bound by company rules. This blog's a pack of lies, it misrepresents what happened on company property and is potentially libelous toward Brand, it makes a series of accusations that are plainly not true, to say nothing of the author's disgusting attitude toward women.

Does the author call his female RBS colleagues "bikes" if they are sexually active?

RBS will almost certainly have this offensive drivel pointed out to them, how they react will be jolly interesting. The author's distaste for earned wealth may well end up costing him his job, which would be very amusing.

Yes. Well Said.Although he may well have pointed out the fact that while staff were stopped from working, the average Joe's banking was not getting done. So in fact Russell most likely also hurt the people he seems to be fighting for. As well as any late processing causing interest paid/best pricing/compensation/overtime and more loss to the publicly owned bank!

" I also hate liars and misogynists like this chap. Watch the clip, decide for yourself whether this man's claims are true. At first I thought it must be a different encounter but that's it. It's all on film."

- I watched it. That's some seriously aggressive and bullying body language from Brand. Look especially at how he constantly maintains physical contact with the blog author and pushes his arm down when talking to him. That would get someone chinned elsewhere.

Look at around the 26 second mark, Brand is speaking with the Bloomberg journalist and the ugly bald man walks past and makes a remark. UBM then goes to walk off, Brand goes after him and politely explains his point and UBM has nothing to say, he thought he could make a crappy remark then run away. Busted.

Then UBM writes up a load of complete nonsense that misrepresents what happened, not realising the whole thing's on film! Priceless. There was no aggression, there was no bullying, the whole encounter was instigated by UBM making his snide remark then trying to run away.

Don't slag people off then try to escape, then claim you were attacked, it's unseemly. Brand wasn't talking to UBM, UBM inserted himself into other peoples' conversation then tried to run away. He's a coward, as well as a liar.

Very difficult not to continue to personalise this debate when it raises so many issues about online forums. I was just confused at first at the claims that this article is well written and funny. It starts to make sense when you realise how much projection is going on. You can't have it both ways. Complaining about being bullied while displaying the most common form of online bullying which is to personalise an argument and raise issues in a 'mock serious; tone that means you don't have to back your views up. Is it a coincidence that all of the people who fete this post either personalise the debate as well or in classically bullying style accuse people of lacking humour when they disagree. Whether it is an inconvenience or not the issues being discussed have cost lives and devastated countless others, Do I lack a sense of humour because I recognise suffering? I thought this was going to either challenge my views or the methods used by Brand. I would happily debate either with people who seem to actually care. But as this is all just trivial point scoring then it is fair to point out that the comment objecting to the word 'bikes' is not just vaild but it does highlight what this post is really about.It is fairly basic psychology and the 'attention seeking' projection really isn't just a touch of hypocrisy. So put it back in your pants and then properly engage in a debate.

This post is nonsense. Watch the film. There's nothing aggressive about their exchange. And on that basis, I don't even believe his lunch was cold. I think he's just as much of an attention seeker as RB. Who at least seems to doing it for good reason.

i just find russell brand more tedious than the pub bore,in fact,you get more sense out of the pub bore,he is a sad little man and a failed comedian who is so desperate for attention he will attach himself to every wacky left wing cause.his worse crime to me is he thinks he represents the voice of the working class,i am working class russell and i can tell you mate you dont represent me or any working class person i know.

Bullying is bullying. Brand has put himself forward, he can't complain about criticism, but having a go at his girlfriends?

Look, this author can't write, this is juvenile stuff, he chose to wade into a conversation that didn't involve him and he got his ass handed to him on a plate. So consumed with bitterness at this public humiliation he makes up a load of old guff about being bullied at school, stuff that leaves anyone who actually watches the clip baffled. So eaten up by resentment he attacks Brand's girlfriends and suggests they are slags. This isn't mature, illuminating debate, it's a sulky, dishonest, misogyinist piece of crap, like its author.

Yeah, clearly. They make a lot of mone for this country, without which we would doubtless go under. If they weren't satisfied with their recompense they would simply go to work in another country, leaving us considerably poorer and the other country taking our place. I know many socialists who are jealous of their pay and bonuses but they're clearly talented and worth every penny. I'm assuming you'd turn down a million pounds for doing your job brilliantly. Go you, perfect morals.

Yeah! Take THAT, men in suits, with your "appointments" and your "don't just turn up unannounced and disrupt our place of business like a dick" fascist RULES! I'm going to park in a disabled space tomorrow, JUST TO STICK IT TO THE MAN!

I personally don't think 'making money' equates in any way to making rfor the people in the country. It equates to the needs of a minority and there seems more evidence that this trickle down doesn't happen. Socialists are jealous is very common argument but is it relevant or true? Are those people who object to selfish behaviour automatically envious. There are fat more talented people who do work for the benefit of society but do so for people who can't massively recompense them. They probably won't leave the country. shpuld they not be rewarded in any way?

Did you read the article? Brand is working for the very Apex of this system. Why isn't he exposing the dodgy accounting scams of Hollywood? Why is he getting so much air time on the BBC? His ex-girlfriend comes from the same social-class as the Rothschilds. Yea mate, Brand is just like you, except he sold his soul and his pushing socialism for very rich and powerful people.

Fantastic piece of writing about an angry talentless, narcissistic nobody who pushes people around for money. Anyone would think he's a deluded, bitter, loudmouthed, socialist ponce who believes that the louder you shout and the fewer words you allow any opposition, the more valid your argument. Yes. He's a socialist alright. The resultant inability to see vanilla facts through the popular lefty propaganda is worrisome.

the article's implication is that potential wealth and working inside the system devalues his argument. It doesn't. I'm not interested in Brand's life. Do I agree with his methods. I'm not sure as his celebrity can be used by people to mask larger issues. That is exactly what this article does. Unfortunately though it is very hard not to be a part of the system in some way. The extent you do doesn't negate an history or an argument. I drink coffee, can I have an opinion on exploitaion in that industry

I personally don't think 'making money' equates in any way to making rfor the people in the country. It equates to the needs of a minority and there seems more evidence that this trickle down doesn't happen.

Gosh, I hope not.

Socialists are jealous is very common argument but is it relevant or true?

Yes.

There are fat more talented people

Like Eamonn Holmes?

who do work for the benefit of society but do so for people who can't massively recompense them. They probably won't leave the country. shpuld they not be rewarded in any way?

careful Steve there are people who don't want the mask to slip. Are you jealous of Brand's money or scared something undeserved will be taken from you? or just a lapdog who latches onto undeserved success? survival of the fittest only works for some people if they pull up the drawbridge after them but they always cry when people batter it down

some people are scared of spiders, some of egalitarianism. it is all just fantasy. all i know is that people with little having more has never made my life worse. people with money giving themselves more has never made my life better

sorry Steve didn't mean to ruffle your perfect life. if you are this scared then you could try studying harder on how to manipulate people. poor 70s comedy doesn't really work and attempts to one up with irrelevant facts just highlights insecurity. intelligent and passionate people always find a way to get past your guard. you should introduce yourself to one

Yes the crimes of socialist totalitarian states are pure fantasy, they never killed anyone, they never brainwashed no one, they never enslaved anyone, it's pure make believe from loonies who spend all their time warning people on the internet because they are brainwashed. Orwell wrote those novels because he was just a moron who was scared of egalitarianism. Those North-Koreans risk their life escaping because of fanaticisms of the mind.

Hitting the big issues! Well done Jo, I can see you're a man of the world with your finger on the pulse. Next time perhaps we can address something a little more significant, like socio-economic disparity.

Or, if you prefer, the temperature of your lunchtime coffee. Your call.

Orwell was not writing about egalitarianism and I am sorry but rewriting the points people make is not an argument. no-one has stated support for a totalitarian state and that really does sound hysterical. horrible crimes have been committed in the name of every philosophy, religious belief and economic belief. where does that leave you? the conditions in which any facsist/communist totalitarian dictatorship arise is a discussion that can be had though

Some fair points and I dont think Russell brand does his cause the greatest of services. Especially as he often lacks the seriousness to directly deal with issues but he is a comedian.

But it is ironic that you complain about him making your luch cold via his protest when he is protesting about the wealth inequality in this country which means people are homeless and going to food banks despite us having the 6th highest GDP in the world and this clearly not being necessary.

Equality doesn't exist anywhere in the natural world, for two things to be equal they have to be same. To enforce this unnatural state of "equality" requires a totalitarian infrastructure. Equality is the mantra of a people marching towards communism.

The only comment I have there is Russel would not be aware of 'Traders' (and the money they make), as he generally simplifies it down to 'the bankers', which even me working in a bank find it hard to pin point exactly who they are. Does it cover the east end trader pulling a couple million pounds a year? Technically i think that trader would not be considered a 'banker'.... He uses the term in the same way 'corporations' is used... ahh good blog! look forward to his response!

OK, well, wow, this was all quite unexpected. Can't possibly reply to all the comments; way too many. I will just address a few points.

"Celebrity bike" is a phrase once used by a female friend of mine. It stuck in my head because I find it funny. I'm not in the business of explaining why things are funny. But I will let my friend know she's a misogynist. It obviously doesn't mean "women" or "all women" or "all sexually active women". Obviously.

Didn't you know that you were being filmed? And that someone might release the clip? Ha! Didn't see that one coming, did you? Yeah, you might want to reread the fourth sentence of the post.

The distance stated of "about two inches" was obvious hyperbole. One thing you clearly can't see in the video is the bit where I whip out a ruler and measure our nasal separation. It is odd that the people arguing that the inaccurate distance proves I'm a LIAR apparently don't understand hyperbole, considering their tendency to use it.

Of course I was aware of how it would look on camera. That was in fact what I said: that accosting people in that way would make great footage. It's clearly carefully calculated. That was my point.

At no point did I claim that Brand bullied me. Really. No, really.

You missed the really important point! Seriously, you're complaining that this post isn't long enough? Blimey.

Some people here seem to want me to be a spokesman for RBS. If that's what you want, call their press office. I'm not even employed by them.

Anyway, as I think I made clear, the important point, as far as I'm concerned, was my lunch. That's not just a literary device. I was hungry and cold and coming down with a nasty cough and having a late lunch because I'd been down to Borough to buy (and I swear I am not making this up) some decent chicken stock, and I was really looking forward to my paella. I've been surrounded by politics for my whole life, and I would have just shrugged off a bit of second-rate faux-Socialist ranting, as I have many a time. Delaying and cooling my lunch is a whole other thing. I'm middle-aged. Lunch is all I have.

Finally, I laughed long and hard at the sight of lefties claiming that I must be lying because my account doesn't tally with The Gospel Of Truth that is The Daily Mail. I can't top that. Hats off.

Actually, no, not finally. This bit is finally. Russell Brand has a lot of fans. Literally millions. Until last week, I thought he was OK myself; a bit patchy, but I loved his bit about Ian Brady and witchcraft. Anyway, with that many people adoring him, I'm sure he can handle one or two of us who don't. Some of his fans here seem to think that ALL OPPOSITION MUST BE CRUSHED. Some mention above of libel action. I don't get it. He's been whinged at by a has-been old blogger who blogs about five times a year these days and will no doubt return to being a has-been within a week. I doubt Brand's as upset as you are. I really hope not, anyway. That would be kind of ridiculous.

Well written. But I just watched the video after reading it and the 'bully' accusation is definitely misleading. The guy jeered at Russell on an anti-capitalist protest, so Russell turned around and made a passionate and respectful effort to win him over. He specifically said "I'm not talking about you individually", which demonstrates a degree of good will rather than malice. A bully would have turned on the guy himself. Russell wasn't the one being confrontational.

On another point, the guy was complaining about being hungry while holding a bag of food. Why did he have to eat it at his desk, if he was that hungry couldn't he have found a bench or something? Might have made for a nice change to eat outside. But I guess that wouldn't have allowed him to smuggle his right-of-centre politics under the innocuous guise an ordinary guy for whom 'food is important'. Food is important to everyone, just ask the people using food banks.

context of 'bike' is crucial. it does disparage people who are not linked to this issue no matter who uses it. and women can degrade other women. i also do think that you clearly are trying to score points about the issue and not just about Brand's presentation and to dismiss people making that point as his fans is patronising and bullying. all the faux-self effacement doesn't mean you don't take yourself very very seriously. it tends to just mean you don't want to be challenged

Eradicating illness in hospitals would be best done by letting the best people rise to the top, rather than people being parachuted in for reasons of equality or privilege. The quality of our healthcare service and public-services in general are being eroded by egalitarian principles of living in a no blame culture, people are not being held to account like they would in the private sector.

Socialism/Communism/Fascism have all been described as modern forms of feudalism. Catholic scholars who have been very much involved in fascist and socialist states have openly declared that their is not much difference in them. They are both totalitarian in nature.

I believe we have a problem with the central banking system because it has centralised power and allowed these mega corporations to eat up all the competition. Centralising even more power and control to make things more fair and even is asking for more trouble as history has proven.

If we want to live in a better and fairer society, we will have to become better and fairer people. Expecting a perfect system to solve all our problems to my mind is madness, I believe systems are self-organising and the quality of the people in a system is more important than the system itself. Enslaving mankind to a system is the opposite of what we need to progress.

i agree the main aim is to become fairer people and that no system will provide fairness if people don't support it. but how does this equate to championing a lack of fairness. what is your definition of 'best people'. skilled? compassionate? How do you know unfairness is not preventing more people from achieving this status. Hospitals would just not exist if 'the best' as I think you define it prevailed. but then most people who consider themselves 'the best' deny the sacrifices of those who will have struggled against unfairness in the past to allow them the means to achieve

feudalism can hardly relate to any notion of equality as no-one can rise above their status. unltimately at what point does a belief in elitism stop? the divine right of kings? why do the right wing point to the flaws of communist systems as a sign that fairer society is impossible and conveniently disassociate themselves from the much more obvious horrors that massive inequality has brought throughout history. of course what it usually means is a belief in these rights but within the laws that have been created to protect themselves from threat. does this 'no blame; culture inc;ude all those who have been publicly revealed to be using the elitism of the system to allow their abuse, corruption and mismanagement to go unchecked

I'm offended that everyone thinks that because the author used a derogatory term 'bikes' he must have been referring to a certain types of women. It could have been men or women. Bunch of sexist commenters.

Russell Brand, if you're reading this (and we all know you go over anything on the internet with your name on with a fine tooth comb) then please, please, please.... go away! Move somewhere else. Anywhere, just... go away. So many people are sick of you. Spare a thought for the people!

As always the main point of all this is missed. the never ending and ever widening gap in wealth and the way the wealthier you are the more tax you avoid. As for missing lunch. At least you can afford one. As for Mr Brand, we need his like, love it or not. His wealth does bother me much like all the "charity begging celebs" but the topic is bigger than one man's ego.

Comments have got out of hand. My take; Brand is a rich, self publicising arse. Whilst the interaction with Brand was short, we are simply not ready for confrontational interactions such as this. Brand is clearly used to operating in that space and he did remind me of school bully's of years ago.

I think the bike comment is probably an acknowledgement that a small number of females have distorted priorities that make their own womanhood cheap.

-and just saw your mid-thread response. There was no 'OBVIOUSLY' about either the 2 inches or the misogyny, I'm afraid. And citing a female friend as the source for the 'bike' jibe does not make it any the less misogynistic.

Jesus Christ, you really are a sniveling little coward aren't you? You don't claim the word isn't offensive, you claim you heard from a woman, so that's ok. Seriously? Which woman? I don't mean which woman friend, I doubt you have any, I mean which person are you calling a "bike", and what on earth makes you think you are the judge of other peoples' sexual activity?

You're an unreconstructed little boy making snide remarks about women you don't know. YOU initiated the exchange, you made a snide remark and tried to escape, this whining blog post merely draws attention to your pack of lies.

brillaint read. I am sick of having to read stuff that makes me uncomfortable. I also eat food and find it often can be difficult when newsreaders 'some of them women' bring up things going on in the world that don't relate to me. My opinions are based on whether a celebrity says things but these should be trusted celebrities who repeat media obsessions; Phil Collins, The guy from Take That, Jimmy Saville. We can trust these people. I am desperate for any kind of attention and my disorder is not something that should be dismissed. If the likes of Brand, who are clearly just desperate for attention, had any sympathy with the people then they would allow me my time in the spotlight without bringing up things I can't answer.This blos is the best thing anyone has ever written. It contains words and it mentions things I have heard of.

love this parody - I cant believe how many people are taking this seriously - this is as funny as The Sun calling Russell Brand a hypocrite. He speaks for disadvantaged people and about major issues that are ruining so many lives ...and you are concerned about...YOUR LUNCH! - Brilliant! A little bit worrying how many people think youre serious though and seem to think that their lunch is more important than people becoming homeless and living in dire poverty.....oh well - a little taste of hunger might do them good!

Thanks for this. about time someone said it. I was masturbating to a video of a guy doing his secretary and found it difficult because my minder was on the phone to her friend talking about a massacre of some sort. I read many things but since the court orders against me few of them help me fantasise in the way I want to. This blog is better than anything that has ever been written ever.

ha ha great point Dave. This guy should have hit him. ha ha. I would hot him too. Ha ha. 'hard'. I get it. some people have penises. ha ha. These are the big things. 'big'. get it. punch them the big penised wankers. I would. I am not afraid. I'm not. really not. lunch. banks. great.

A quick couple of thoughts – take them/leave them/ walk your own path.

Too much aggression from both the author and way too many of those posting comments/replies.I don’t much like Russell but, after reading this, am not sure I would like the author much either.Protest makes for discomfort, it’s the whole point – but frustration should never lead to the kind of hostility splattered on this page.

I’m ashamed of how this country is governed but not too proud of most of those “what claim to speak for the people, innit”.Nice that someone with some intelligence posts a well written counterpoint to Mr Bland, whether I agree wholeheartedly or not with the sentiment.

Anyone who wants to put their head above the parapet with a valid opinion should be able to do so.When we taxpayers “get the money back” we should have a party to celebrate how we all got to voice our opinions.I mean, we will get the money back, right?Surely now they’ve taken it away from us they won’t find a “better” place to spend all that profit they make from the resale?

The "bail out" money applies to one year, the deficit has been running now for seven (and was before that but was hidden by a boom in house prices).

Blaming "bankers" for , well, everything is what the ignorant (like Brand) do to find someone else to blame other than Blair and Brown. We are not the USA.

The money that is regularly spent as a result of their 'legacy' is not recoverable at all, and is being continually spent.

There's a definition game that is always being played, that banks "caused" the recession. This is true but misleading. They triggered the recession. But recessions are cyclical, and triggered by an event - if it hadn't been the banks, it would have been the Japanese reactor, or the Euro mess, or even just a bad day on the markets, or a political crisis (like the Scotland vote).

They happen anyway (you cannot "abolish boom and bust").

What matters is not that the recession happened, because you can't stop them. It's how you react to them, before and after. If , as before, you behave as Brown did and spend and borrow as if there was no boom and the money would carry on indefinitely (e.g. it's repeatable income) then you are in a mess for when the tide turns - and despite the claims of Brown (and Thatcher claimed the same once) it always will.

The banking crisis may well tell us why 2008 was a crisis ; it doesn't say why there is one now.

We are borrowing currently about £100bn a year, down from £160bn a year at the fag end of Brown's government.

Good comment about his write to have a response to Brand, and that these opinons need to be expressed without aggression but I don't think many if any of the people disagreeing with the post have been aggressive. I would also say that he had is chance to respond publically and blew it. This piece really is a re-writing of the events in an attempt to make the personal side he feels more important than massive issues and you can see the abrupt, dismissive, responses it engendered. As you say, like or not like Brand, is irrelevent to the argument. If this was just rant about whether the guy liked Brand then it would have had little attention and his personality would have been exposed. He makes constant dismissive references to 'leftys' without expressing a clear opinion and with the exception of one person on here I have not read one person responding intelligently to vaild points being raised about the issues.There is plenty of opportunity to express a right wing view in the media so lets not champion an opinion that does it in a backhand and poorly written way.

How many people would have suffered if the banks had all been allowed to collapse? As I understand it, a lot of people would have lost all or part of their savings. No doubt mortgages would have been hit, pensions, and of course the hundreds of thousands of people working in banks out of a job. I'm not on about the rich ones, I'm on about the staff at your local branch. No doubt it could have been handled better, and there are many good points around the lack of fines, lack of people going to jail etc, whether we've done enough to prevent it happenning again, etc. But it could have been a lot worse too. The point of the post is that blaming and harrassing people who aren't part of the problem is pretty useless.

I really don't understand an economic argument that says 'it was inevitable' and not the bankers fault. A Labour or Conservative government would have sat by as the world bank attempted to manipulate markets to guarantee their own stability. It has massively failed most people. It was not 'boom or bust' or what that really means 'an act of god'. This was mismanagement on a huge scale. There is no logical seasonal reason why recession happened and nonsense economics to suggest there is. If we trust the markets then all those who were overseeing this should be down at the foodbanks.

Completely agree with you and about time someone stood up and spoke out from the City. Brand loves turning the disillusioned sectors of society and, to be frank, groups of malleable misfits who aren't getting what they want from the system against all that is "capitalism" (or as we say, "Normal") whilst at the same time using smoke,mirrors and a dashing (if not slightly gummy) smile to distract them from the fact he is simply creating a whirlwind of publicity to blow more money off that special tree of his.

I hate all this bashing of "bankers" and "city elite". It's complete bullshit and paints many of us moderately paid, hard working, 14h day desk jockeys in a bad light - we're all normal people (who generally spend their mornings trying to not breathe in the garlic breath of the commuter next to us on a cramped train, rather than getting our chest hair brushed before swanning off in an S-Class Mercedes to provide vacuous comments to a mid-morning TV show) normal people being stereotyped and ostracised by someone who quite frankly is full of cloak and dagger throughout his life.

The man is a professional diversionist and manipulator - thank you for taking what was essentially a borderline harassment situation and turning it in to something positive. I hope this goes viral and will look out for a reply from the lunch-ruining ponce on his "Trews" channel :-)

agree that people who work in banks shouldn't have suffered. But then neither should the millions of people in other industries who could not have prevented this crisis and are being asked to pay for it. there are plenty of anti-socialist statements on here and although I don't count myself as one it is interesting that the people who created the crisis have lent on socialist principles of protection against the nuances of the market. None of us are allowed this privilege

Steve. If people says they didn't think it was funny then you shouldn't get all shrivelled up. hyper sensitive? there is only one person here who sounds like he cries himself to sleep desperate to be loved. People don't like what you like, doesn't mean they don't like you. There are other reasons they don't like you but you have to keep the voices in your head quiet and listen to what other people are saying

paella for lunch and probably earning in the 98 th percentile. £60 k and up which puts you closer to Brand than any other hardworking people in the country. Northern Rock sold at a loss and as if the tories won't be selling RBS off at loss to their industry and public school friends.

It's bad enough a man's lunch is interrupted by anyone, but when it's by a preening, posturing hypocrite, it's too much. Good fun and good points well made, I very much enjoyed reading your blog posting.

Indeed, they brilliantly manipulated exchange rates with their friends in order to make easy money for themselves and their banks. Thank fk we have them here instead of another country. Plus they keep the champagne business going.

ha ha ha Steve's angry face is creeping through agan. get a sense of humour you lot. unless you do. then stop picking on me. you're not clever enough to pick on me. oh wait you might be. don't be so smug and clever. oh wait. that makes me sound pathetic. maybe I can read up on this. big words, badly used by the way Steve. I know that is part of the disorder but you could disguise it better

I too was a person that thought Brand was a complete tit for years before everyone else realised and always rolled my eyes at the talk of how "intelligent" he is. He is a brainless bully obsessed with looking good infront of a camera, except his time infront of cameras is becoming less and less these days, hence the reason he needs to manufacture a cause to fight to get some of that precious attention he cannot live without